1 |
On 2012-01-19, Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Indeed. Other reasons to avoid using LL addresses unless necessary: |
4 |
> What if the MAC address on the server changes? |
5 |
|
6 |
It won't. It's an embedded device with a hard-wired MAC that the user |
7 |
can't change. |
8 |
|
9 |
> What if your network grows to have hundreds of clients? |
10 |
|
11 |
Then people probably won't be using L-L addresses. However, for a |
12 |
network that consists of 6 small devices all living inside a cabinet |
13 |
with no router, DHCP server, or connection to the outside workd, L-L |
14 |
is great. |
15 |
|
16 |
> Do you really want that much broadcast and wide multicast (think |
17 |
> DNS-SD and NTP in multicast mode) traffic on the same Ethernet |
18 |
> segment? |
19 |
|
20 |
That bit I don't understand. It's no worse that ARP, and we seem to |
21 |
live with that quite easily. |
22 |
|
23 |
> LL addresses are very useful for diagnostic and investigation |
24 |
> purposes, of course. |
25 |
|
26 |
Indeed, and that's what I'm doing. |
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I'm rated PG-34!! |
30 |
at |
31 |
gmail.com |